Can Administrators Spot a Good Teacher to Hire?
For individuals and groups seeking to improve the quality of teaching in American public schools, high on their list of demands is the ability to quickly dismiss (often without proper procedure) teachers deemed “poor” by performance measures. This particular proposal would be rather pointless if the reformers didn’t also believe that “bad” teachers could be replaced with “good” teachers. But what are the chances that schools will be able to replace all those underperforming teachers with high performing ones? Do we really trust that school administrators can spot “good” teachers when it comes time to hire? And what happens when a “bad” teacher’s replacement ends up doing just as poorly? These questions must be dealt with prior to granting increased hiring and firing power to school administrators.
First, can schools replace bad teachers with good teachers? In some school districts, I imagine there is healthy competition for jobs. The districts may be located in desirable areas, have high tax bases (meaning good school funding), and generally be known as places for good schools. In these cases, it should be easy to get a large number of applicants for teaching jobs. That means that if an underperforming teacher is let go, a better applicant will likely be found.
But what about school districts that are far less desirable? Inner city schools are underfunded, present more challenges to education, and are located in undesirable areas. An underperforming teacher in a school like this still represents a teacher who was willing to work in the school. Perhaps that was out of desperation, but in many cases it is likely because that teacher wanted to try to do some good. Finding a better quality replacement may be a large challenge. The same is true for small towns; not many teachers will want to live in a remote farming community when a better job is also an option, and for the “best” teachers, there should be many more options available.
We can’t conclude that firing bad teachers will automatically result in their replacement with good teachers in cases where the job itself is not appealing. Schools still must rely on market forces when it comes time to pick a candidate. Indeed, in some cases, underperforming teachers who are allowed to reapply for their jobs may end up the best candidate, just like they were when they applied for the jobs in the first place.
In addition to market forces, school administrators must know how to pick the best teacher. In some cases, the comparisons may be easy. A teacher with 10 years of experience and average performance ratings won’t look as good as a teacher with the same experience and high performance ratings. But how often will administrators have such a straightforward comparison to make? The most vexing case will be an experienced teacher whose students perform around average compared to a new teacher, with no experience but an incredible excitement and passion for the job. It’s easy to see how the new teacher would outshine the experienced teacher; that optimism and idealism can be contagious. But what does the evidence say about the success and abilities of new teachers? It would seem unlikely for new teachers to regularly outperform their experienced counterparts on average.
The administrator has a very difficult choice to make. How can all the evidence be weighed in order to produce one clear winner candidate? Financial issues may also come into play. The new teacher will make a lower salary, freeing up district resources. The new teacher may only have a BA, while the experienced teacher has an MA; many states require that better educated teachers be paid higher salaries, thus giving the district a financial incentive to higher the less educated applicant. Politics may matter too. The experienced teacher being considered for dismissal may have rankled some teachers over the years, while the new teacher will be willing to go along to get along. With all these complicating factors, do we really trust the administrator to make the choice based solely on learning outcomes for students?
In some cases, such trust will be misplaced, and expectations of high performance by the replacement teacher will fall short. Not all teachers can be above average by definition, and most replacements will end up being comparisons between teachers in the middle of the pack. In other words, if administrators are regularly seeking to replace underperforming teachers, then many replacements will also end up being underperforming, simply by the laws of statistical sampling.
What are administrators to do in these cases? The challenges facing school districts will likely mean that very few districts exercise any additional power to fire underperforming teachers, except in the most egregious of cases. But therein lies the rub. No organization – not politicians, not parents’ groups, not school districts, and not teachers’ unions – would oppose the fair dismissal of a grossly incompetent teacher. So what change to the law is really needed?
Indeed, school districts have the ability to deal with these exceptionally poor teachers right now, even when the teachers have tenure! Every state in the nation has policies for dismissing a teacher with tenure; tenure simply grants the teacher the right to certain protections under the law. For example, some states require that teachers with tenure get a hearing about the reasons for their firing prior to being dismissed; for teachers with no tenure, there is no such protection. Other states require that the teacher’s failings be documented prior to firing, something that only the stupidest school districts wouldn’t do. After all, not documenting what the employee has struggled with makes for great evidence in a lawsuit alleging discrimination.
Specifically, consider North Carolina’s laws for dismissing a teacher who has tenure. Teachers with tenure can be dismissed for inadequate performance, neglect of duties, failure to fulfill statutory duties of teachers as defined by state law, insubordination, failure to comply with requirements set forth by the board of education, immoral or inappropriate conduct, incapacity (physical or mental), failure to maintain teaching license, failure to pay money owed to the government, or advocating the overthrow of the government. With all those pieces laid out, who wants to argue that the school district’s hands are tied by tenure?
No district can honestly say they are crippled by poor teachers, none of whom can be dismissed. The poorest teachers can currently be dismissed in a fair way, whether that teacher has tenure or not. These worst teachers can easily be replaced by better teachers in almost all cases. The average teachers won’t be fired, because districts know the chances of replacement with a better teacher are small, and the repercussions of getting rid of a teacher with average performance could be huge. Thus giving greater power to school administrators to hire and fire would likely not improve education significantly. Instead, it would serve to put more power into the hands of a single individual. If critics believe that the education system in America is failing, then rewarding administrators is like giving a bonus to a CEO when the company goes bankrupt.
Related posts (automatically generated):